Thanks And Acknowledgements

My thanks go to Kent Libraries and Archives - Folkestone Library and also to the archive of the Folkestone Herald. For articles from the Folkestone Observer, my thanks go to the Kent Messenger Group. Southeastern Gazette articles are from UKPress Online, and Kentish Gazette articles are from the British Newspaper Archive. See links below.

Paul Skelton`s great site for research on pubs in Kent is also linked

Other sites which may be of interest are the Folkestone and District Local History Society, the Kent History Forum, Christine Warren`s fascinating site, Folkestone Then And Now, and Step Short, where I originally found the photo of the bomb-damaged former Langton`s Brewery, links also below.


Welcome

Welcome to Even More Tales From The Tap Room.

Core dates and information on licensees tenure are taken from Martin Easdown and Eamonn Rooney`s two fine books on the pubs of Folkestone, Tales From The Tap Room and More Tales From The Tap Room - unfortunately now out of print. Dates for the tenure of licensees are taken from the very limited editions called Bastions Of The Bar and More Bastions Of The Bar, which were given free to very early purchasers of the books.

Easiest navigation of the site is by clicking on the PAGE of the pub you are looking for and following the links to the different sub-pages. Using the LABELS is, I`m afraid, not at all user-friendly.

Contrast Note

Whilst the above-mentioned books and supplements represent an enormous amount of research over many years, it is almost inevitable that further research will throw up some differences to the published works. Where these have been found, I have noted them. This is not intended to detract in any way from previous research, but merely to indicate that (possible) new information is available.

Contribute

If you have any anecdotes or photographs of the pubs featured in this Blog and would like to share them, please mail me at: jancpedersen@googlemail.com.

If you`ve enjoyed your visit here, why not buy me a pint, using the button at the end of the "Labels" section?


Search This Blog

Saturday 27 July 2013

Marquis Of Lorne 1900s



Folkestone Chronicle 14-7-1900

Saturday, July 7th: Before Alderman J. Banks.

George Humphreys, a rough looking customer, was charged with being drunk, disorderly, and breaking a pane of glass, value 10s., at the Marquis Of Lorne.

Fined 10s. and 4s. 6d. costs on the first count, and 10s. damage and 4s. 6d. costs on the second, or 14 days` hard labour on each charge.

Folkestone Express 15-3-1902

Friday, March 7th: Before W. Wightwick and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Colonel Hamilton.

Mr. Richard Heritage was granted a transfer of licence of the Marquis Of Lorne public house.

Folkestone Chronicle 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday morning the large hall at the Folkestone Town hall was crowded to excess by temperance people, publicans, “trade” sympathisers, and some hundreds of the neutral public, to witness the anticipated legal combat over licensing matters in the borough. The Court presented a very animated appearance. On the Bench were Mr. W. Wightwick, Colonel Hamilton, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey. Facing the Bench were a noble array of legal luminaries, including Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C., and Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed respectively by Mr. Martin Mowll and Mr. G. Haines, to represent the applicants in the cases of opposed old licences; Mr. Thomas Matthew and Mr. Thorn Drury, instructed by Mr. Minter, representing new applicants; and Mr. Montague Bradley, solicitor, who held a watching brief for the Temperance Council. The Chief Constable, Mr. Harry Reeve, was present conducting the opposition. These gentlemen were flanked by the Press on one side, and on the other by either the principals or representatives of the various breweries having interests in the town, such as Messrs. Leney, Mackeson, Nalder and Colyer, Flint, G. Beer, etc.

The Chairman, in opening the Court, said that 23 full licences stood adjourned since the previous Court. Since the adjournment, enquiries had been made, and from those enquiries the Chief Constable was instructed to persevere in the objection against nine houses, viz.: The Providence, Mr. Arthur F. East; Marquis Of Lorne, Wm. R. Heritage; Granville, Charles Partridge; Victoria, Alfred Skinner; Tramway, Fredk. Skinner; Hope, Stephen J. Smith; Star, Ernest Tearall; Bricklayers Arms, Joseph A. Whiting; and Blue Anchor, Walter Whiting. From a recent inspection of those houses, however, the Bench had decided to withdraw the objections against the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor, and proceed with the remainder. Regarding the 17 houses which would that day have their licences renewed without opposition, the Bench had decided to deal with them at the 1904 Sessions according to the then ruling circumstances. The Bench desired to warn Mrs. Brett, of the Swan Hotel, as to her husband`s conduct of the business. In the cases of the London And Paris, the Imperial Hotel, the Mechanics Arms, and those houses against which convictions were recorded, it was the desire of the Bench to warn the various landlords that any further breach of the licensing laws would place their licences seriously in jeopardy. With respect to the Imperial Tap (sic), the Castle, and those houses which had been originally objected to for structural alterations to be made, the Bench now renewed the licences on the condition that the order made as to the various alterations should be carried out in 14 days. It was the wish of the Bench that the general warning should also apply to the beerhouses under the Act of 1869.

Coming to the licences in the old portion of the town, the Bench were of opinion that they were out of all proportion to the population, and it was the purpose of the Bench to obtain information before the 1904 Sessions which would lead to their reduction. In the meantime, the Bench invited the brewers and owners to co-operate with the Magistrates in arriving at the mode of the reduction. Failing that, the Justices would take the matter into their own hands, and, he hoped, arrive at conclusions on a fair and equitable basis. (Hear, hear)

Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. at once asked the Bench to withdraw their opposition to all the opposed licences this year. With the whole of his learned friends, he thought he was right in saying that in view of legislation in the coming year it would be fairer to the Trade to wait until 1904 before taking any drastic action. He would submit that because a neighbourhood happened to be congested, it was hardly fair to take away one man`s living and to hand it over to another, which such a proceeding practically meant.

The Chairman said the Bench would note Counsel`s observations, but the applications must proceed in the usual way.

The Marquis Of Lorne

The tenant of the Marquis Of Lorne, Mr. Wm. Heritage, was somewhat surprised when his application for a renewal was refused.

The evidence was very short. Under previous tenants, it was said, the house had not been everything that could be desired, although, in answer to Mr. Thorn Drury, the police admitted that there was no complaint against the present tenant, who had been in possession only twelve months. The chief grounds of opposition were in respect to certain structural alterations, which it was thought could not be carried out in a practical and satisfactory form.

Mr. Drury asked the Bench, if only for this year, to consider his tenant, whose living depended on his twelve months` investment. Although, no doubt, the brewers would meet Mr. Heritage, yet he would point out that if the licence were taken away, it would not be any adequate compensation to his client, who, he believed, had worked up a very good business by dint of hard work during the past twelve months. As a further inducement, the brewers would undertake to carry out any alterations suggested by the Bench.

The Bench retired, and, after three minutes, returned into Court with the announcement that they were unanimous in their decision to refuse the renewal of the licence. As the tenant had only been in the house twelve months, the Bench thought that in all probability the brewers would compensate him.

Folkestone Express 7-3-1903

Wednesday, March 4th: Before W. Wightwick, Col. Hamilton, Col. Westropp, E.T. Ward, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

It will be remembered that at the last sessions the Justices ordered notices of opposition to be given to nine licence holders, namely:- the Providence, the Marquis Of Lorne, the Victoria, the Tramway, the Hope, the Star, the Bricklayers Arms, and the Blue Anchor.

Several other applications were adjourned, and in some cases plans were ordered to be submitted. The notices of opposition to the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor were afterwards, by direction of the Bench, withdrawn.

The flowing counsel were engaged:-  Mr. Lewis Glyn, K.C., instructed by Mr. Mowll, Mr. Percival Hughes, instructed by Mr. G.W. Haines, representing the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association; Mr. G. Thorn Drury and Mr. Theodore Matthew, instructed by Mr. Minter; and Mr. Drake was briefed in the matter of the Blue Anchor, which was not in the end opposed. Mr. Bradley, of Dover, representing the Folkestone Temperance Party and Mr. W. Mowll opposed the applications for the two new licences.

The Chairman said before the commenced business, he would, by direction of the Magistrates, read to the gentlemen present what they proposed doing. At the General Annual Licensing Meeting they directed the Chief Constable to give notice to the owners of nine houses. Since then they had inspected those houses, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served upon the owners of the Victoria, the Hope, and the Blue Anchor. The other objections would be proceeded with. As regarded the remaining houses, they decided to renew the licences, but the Chairman referred to those cases where there had been convictions, and warned the licence holders to be careful in future. Certain structural alterations were ordered to be made at the Packet Boat, the Brewery Tap, the Castle Inn, the Lifeboat, and the Prince Of Wales.

The Licensing Justices expressed the opinion that the number of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the borough, especially in that part of the town near the harbour, is out of all proportion to the population, and the Justices proposed between now and the Licensing Sessions of 1904 to gain information and determine what reduction shall then be made. Meanwhile the owners of licensed houses were invited to agree amongst themselves to voluntarily surrender a substantial number of licences in the borough in 1904, and submit the result of their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing a satisfactory voluntary reduction, the Justices would in the exercise of their discretion in a fair and equitable spirit decide what reduction should then be made.

Mr. Glyn, who said he was instructed on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, thanked the Magistrates for the statement as to the course they intended to adopt, and said he was going to throw out a suggestion that it would be fairer under the circumstances if the renewals which still stood over for hearing should also stand adjourned until the Annual General Licensing Meeting of next year. The principal ground of complaint, so far as he gathered, was that the houses were not wanted. He contended that it would not be fair, for instance, to take away one of the six licences which were to be opposed.

The Chairman, however, said the Magistrates decided to hear all the evidence.

The Marquis Of Lorne

This was the only case in which the licence was refused.

Mr. Drury said in that case the substantial objection was the same. There was no complaint as to the conduct.

The Superintendent said there was no spirit licence, although a certificate had been granted.

Mr. Henry Robert Walton, excise officer, was called to prove this.

Mr. Drury said they were prepared to give exactly the same undertaking with regard to the common lodging house business. By good management the tenant had increased the trade, and he was now prepared to take out the spirit licence. He would also undertake to close up a side entrance.

Plans were put in, showing that there was an entrance from a yard, to which another house had a right of access, and the Superintendent said he considered the opening of that other cottage into the yard highly objectionable.

Mr. Drury said he would be glad if the Bench would be good enough to give them an opportunity of seeing what they could do in the matter.

The Chairman said the house was structurally unfitted. It was dilapidated, and he did not see how it could be got over.

After retiring, the Bench decided not to renew the licence.

Mr. Drury said it would be a great hardship to the tenant, who paid a valuation, and had expended £52 on the house.

Mr. Ward: How long has he been in there?

The applicant, Mr. Heritage, said 12 months on the 6th March.

Mr. Wightwick said the Bench unanimously refused the licence. With regard to compensation, if he had only been in 12 months, probably the brewers would compensate him.

Folkestone Herald 7-3-1903

Adjourned Licensing Sessions

The Adjourned Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Folkestone were held in the Town hall on Wednesday. In view of the opposition by the police to a number of the existing licences extraordinary interest was evinced in the meeting, and when the proceedings commenced at eleven o`clock in the morning there was a very large attendance, the “trade” being numerously represented. Representatives of the Folkestone Temperance Council and religious bodies in the town were also present, prominent amongst them being Mr. J. Lynn, Mrs. Stuart, and the Rev. J.C. Carlile. Prior to the commencement of business the Licensing Justices held a private meeting amongst themselves. When the doors were thrown open to the public there was a tremendous rush for seats. The Justices present were the following:- Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Mr. J. Pledge, Lieut. Col. Westropp, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Before proceeding with the business, the Chairman announced that at the Annual Licensing Meeting the Justices adjourned the renewal of 23 full licences and five on beer licences, and directed the Chief Constable to give notice of objection to the owners of the licences of the following nine houses:- Providence (Arthur F. East); Marquis Of Lorne (William R. Heritage); Granville (Charles Partridge); Victoria (Alfred Skinner); Tramway (Frederick Skinner); Hope (Stephen J. Smith); Star (Ernest Tearall); Bricklayers Arms (Joseph A. Whiting); and Blue Anchor (Walter Whiting). Since the former sessions the Justices had inspected all the houses objected to, and considered the course which they ought to pursue with respect to the same, with the result that they had directed the Chief Constable to withdraw the notices of objection served by him with respect of the Victoria, Hope, and Blue Anchor, and to persist in the opposition to the following:- Providence, Marquis Of Lorne, Granville, Tramway, Star, and Bricklayers Arms. As regarded the remaining 15 full licences and five beer licences they would renew the same this year, and deal with them next year according to the circumstances.

The Licensing Justices were of opinion that the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors now existing in the Borough of Folkestone, especially in that part of the old town near the immediate neighbourhood of the Harbour, was out of all proportion to the population, and they proposed, between now and the General Annual Licensing Meeting of 1904, to obtain information on various matters to enable them to determine what reduction should be made in the number of licences. Meanwhile they invited the owners of licensed premises to meet and agree among themselves for the voluntary surrender, at the General Licensing Meeting of 1904, of a substantial number of licences in the Borough, and submit their united action to the Licensing Justices. Failing satisfactory proposals for voluntary reduction by the owners, the Licensing Justices would, in the exercise of their discretionary powers decide, in a fair and reasonable spirit, what reduction should then be made.

At this stage Mr. Lewis Glyn K.C. (instructed by Mr. Mowll, solicitor, Dover), who represented the brewers, suggested that, under the circumstances, the opposition to all the licences in the borough should be postponed until the Annual Licensing Meeting next year.

The Chairman: We want to hear the cases first.

Mr. Glyn: I think it would be fairer to the “trade” to postpone the consideration of this also till next year. In the meantime any structural alterations which are required, the brewers, in conjunction with the tenants, will have an opportunity of doing what is required.

The Justices decided that the cases must proceed.

The Marquis Of Lorne, landlord Wm. R. Heritage, to which objection had been made to the renewal of the licence, was next dealt with.

Mr. Thorn Drury said the objection to this house was substantially the same as in the other cases.

Evidence was given by Inspector Swift.

Mr. Thorn Drury intimated that, with regard to its being a common lodging house, they were prepared to give exactly the same undertaking. They would also be prepared to close up the side entrance. He asked the Justices to give them an opportunity of seeing if something could not be done in order to save the man. He had only been in the house twelve months.

The Justices consulted in private, and on returning in about five minutes, the Chairman said: The Bench unanimously refuse this licence. With regard to compensation, I believe the brewers will compensate you as you have only been there twelve months.   


Southeastern Gazette 10-3-1903

Local News

At the Adjourned Licensing Sessions on Wednesday, the renewal of the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne was refused.

Folkestone Express 14-3-1903

Local News

We hear that the refusal of the Licensing Justices to renew the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne public house will be appealed against.

Folkestone Chronicle 11-4-1903

East Kent Quarter Sessions

Tuesday, April 7th: Before Sir W.L. Selfe.

The Marquis Of Lorne, Folkestone

In this case Mr. G.T. Drury appeared for the appellant and Mr. Coward and Mr. Hohler for the respondents.

In opening the case, Mr. Hohler said the justices, after inspecting the premises, directed the Chief Constable to give notice of opposition. Their objections were (1) That the licensed premises were not required for public accommodation; (2) that the premises were unfit to be licensed; (3) that the premises were not suitable for night accommodation; (4) that no excise licence for the premises had been taken out. There was a public bar facing Radnor Street, a small store, a lumber room behind, and a small dark living room for the licensee adnd his family. The Marquis Of Lorne was not adapted for a night lodging house. It had only five bedrooms, and they were made to accommodate 16 persons, comprising out-porters and men employed in the fishing industry. There were in the neighbourhood 88 full, 11 beer on, 6 beer off, and other licensed premises to the number of 140. This number, he maintained, was out of all proportion to the needs of the place.

Harry Reeve, Chief Constable, and Alfred Wm. Burniston gave evidence.

Wm. Heritage, the tenant, said his father had occupied the premises before him. Since taking over the business (18 months ago), the trade had increased. No complaints had previously been made by the police with regard to the conduct or management of the premises.

Mr. Drury, for the appellant, asked what was the position of his client? He had gone into a house which his father had occupied for some years. He had invested all the money he had, and no-one had suggested how he was to recover the £90 which he had expended on the undertaking. If it could be said that the appellant had done something that he ought not to have done, then he would not have had so much to say. There were several similar houses in the vicinity, but this, it appeared, was the only one the police objected to. The police seized upon this unfortunate man`s house purely and simply because in the existence of a certain right of way to cottages they saw a reason which would in their opinion justify their action.

Mr. Coward observed that so far as he knew the Justices were quite within their rights when they refused to grant the renewal of the appellant`s licence. He ventured to think there was nothing more objectionable than the construction of the Marquis Of Lorne. There were two entrances to this house in Radnor Street, a passage communicating with some cottages, one of which was a lodging house. In this way people had easy access to the licensed premises in question, and the Justices in his opinion exercised very wise discretion.

The Bench retired, and after a short deliberation, the Chairman announced that the decision of the Justices would be upheld. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed with costs.

Southeastern Gazette 14-4-1903

East Kent Quarter Sessions

In the case of the Marquis Of Lorne, Folkestone, which was an appeal against the refusal by the Justices of Folkestone to renew the licence of the house, Mr. G.T. Drury appeared for the appellant (Heritage), and Mr. Coward K.C. and Mr. Hohler for the respondents.

The Chairman announced that the decision of the Justices would be upheld. Their appeal was, therefore, dismissed, with costs.
 

Folkestone Express 18-4-1903

East Kent Quarter Sessions

At the Kent Quarter Sessions, amongst the appeals was that against the refusal to renew the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne, Radnor Street, Folkestone, the property of Messrs. Ash and Co.

Mr. G.T. Drury appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Lewis Coward K.C., and Mr. Hohler for the Justices.

Mr. Lewis Coward said the licence was refused on four grounds, namely that the licence was not required, that the premises were structurally unfit, that the premises were used as a common lodging house, and also that no spirit licence had been taken out for four or five years. There were 63 houses in Radnor Street, and eight of them were fully licensed houses. In Folkestone there were 88 fully licensed houses, 11 beer on licences, six beer off licences, four wine off licences, three wine on licences, and 28 spirit off licences granted to grocers and others, making a total of 140 licences. Within 130 paces of the house there were 23 fully licensed houses.

Superintendent Reeve, Sergeant Swift, and Detective Sergeant Burniston gave evidence on behalf of the justices` decision, after which William Richard Heritage, the tenant, gave evidence, and said that he had been tenant for over twelve months. He was doing two and a half barrels a week. He paid £47 to go in; there was no furniture except a few bedsteads. He had spent £52 since on fittings. He was prepared to arrange that each lodger should have a separate room. He had a profit of 12s. to 13s. per barrel, and his rent £15 and rates, etc.

Mr. Bromley produced plans of the premises and the proposed alterations in the yard.

Mr. Drury, in speaking on behalf of the appellants, said the tenant had had no complaint made against him, and had invested his money in the house about twelve months ago, and could not recover any of it. Out of all the houses objected to only this one had its licence refused. The fact of a right of way across the back premises to two cottages was the chief ground of complaint. They ought to be allowed a year in which negotiations might be made with the owners of the cottages for alterations to be made. The spirit licence had not been taken out but the tenant was willing to take one out, and no case had been made that any other treatment should be meted out to this tenant than to the others.

Mr. Coward observed that so far as he knew the justices were quite within their rights when they refused to grant the renewal of the applicant`s house. He ventured to think there was nothing more objectionable than the construction of the Marquis Of Lorne. There were two entrances to this house in Radnor Street, and a passage communicating with some cottages, one of which was a lodging house. In this way people had easy access to the licensed premises in question, and the Justices in his opinion exercised very wise discretion in refusing a renewal of the licence.

The Bench retired, and after a short deliberation the Chairman announced that the decision of the Justices would be upheld. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed, with costs.

Folkestone Herald 18-4-1903

Local News

At the East Kent Quarter Sessions, held recently, an appeal against the refusal of the Folkestone Licensing Bench to renew the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne, Radnor Street, Folkestone, the property of Messrs. Ash and Company, was dismissed with costs. 
 

Folkestone Chronicle 11-7-1903

Wednesday, July 8th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. J. Stainer.

Following, in most cases, orders for temporary authority, full transfer of licences in relation to the following house was granted:- The Lord Nelson, Radnor Street, from Mr. John Miles to Mr. William Heritage, who formerly held the licence of the Marquis Of Lorne, which was closed at the last Sessions.
 
 
 

 
 


No comments:

Post a Comment